“News Anchors Fired in Spain For Asking Frank Questions of Political Leaders; Move Guaranteed to Backfire

One way to control news reporting in these trying times is to get rid of news anchors the state does not like, replaced by news anchors willing to be media puppets of the government. Spain has done precisely that, forcing out popular news anchors for asking pointed questions.

“The organization that Amelia’s involved in was working on voter registration issues I believe before she ever joined,” Warren said. “And they were working in several different states, they’re working with other organizations and they were working with the commonwealth of Massachusetts before I ever became involved in the campaign.”

Elizabeth Warren demanded Monday that Senator Scott Brown release more of his tax returns. The only problem was that Brown, her Republican rival, had already released six years of tax returns while Warren has refused to release more than four years of her filings.

Asked to reconcile that apparent conflict, Warren backed off her demand, saying today that six years was enough. She did not, however, offer to release any more of her IRS filings.”

Apparently it never occurred to anyone in the campaign (?) that if Scott Brown did comply with EW’s public demands and released 20 years of tax returns, then she would have to do so as well. Not really sure what to say about that.

In the press conference in the video below, Newt reminds everyone that without Tommy Thompson, there wouldn’t have been welfare reform, and that school choice was based on the groundwork Tommy Thompson had done in Wisconsin.

The Obama administration undermines classroom order in pursuit of phantom racism.

And so the Departments of Education and Justice have launched a campaign against disproportionate minority discipline rates, which show up in virtually every school district with significant numbers of black and Hispanic students. The possibility that students’ behavior, not educators’ racism, drives those rates lies outside the Obama administration’s conceptual universe. But the country will pay a high price for the feds’ blindness, as the cascade of red tape and lawsuits emanating from Washington will depress student achievement and enrich advocates and attorneys for years to come.

Well, the U S did not “hire” any First Lady, but in Michelle’s case, she’s sucking the taxpayers dry vacationing every two weeks. If the “bennies” are not enough, I suggest she plant her wide body in the White House and stay there.

Ive seen the feature work elsewhere and its not a bad notion really. Particularly in a basically un- moderated enviroment. Its user directed and simply removes the posts of another from view for a user who doesnt want to see posts from particular members.
Like any add on it can be misused when a member feels the need to announce “I have ignored you” that causes a pile on mentality. Part of its functionality alao allows a user to “unignore” others.

If Harper Collins dares to take those books out of Chick-fil-A’s meals, expect a torrent of angry parents, many of whom take their kids to a healthy environment where they can have wholesome books and not hear a cuss-a-minute music blaring out of the speakers.

“The 1996 welfare reform legislation was overwhelmingly popular, was a great bipartisan achievement, stands as a policy success and comports with Americans’ deepest values about personal responsibility and the work ethic. And Obama tosses that aside, for reasons that still seem perplexing. Is there some anti-work welfare contingent out there? It’s inexplicable both on policy and political grounds.”

U.S. Senate nominee Ted Cruz is looking like Mitt Romney’s new best friend, in what some call a smart move by the presumed GOP presidential nominee to tap into tea party enthusiasm and showcase Latino support.

On Tuesday night, it was reported that Cruz would be a speaker at the Republican National Convention late this month, and he tweeted that he is honored.

Newt alert. From NRO article on welfare reform just now about Clinton response we see this

In case reading that long-winded statement didn’t get you fully back in the 1990s mindset, Newt Gingrich will be on a RNC conference call with the media this morning discussing welfare reform.

And Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams issued this statement in response to Clinton:

President Obama was a vocal opponent of the innovative, bipartisan welfare reforms that President Clinton and a Republican Congress passed in 1996. His administration has now undermined the central premise of those reforms by gutting the welfare-to-work requirement. Unlike President Obama, Mitt Romney has a record of fighting to strengthen work requirements. As president, he will ensure that nearly sixteen years of progress aren’t erased with one stroke of a pen.

Looking at how the Administration handles itself…with Boeing and Gibson Guitar we would expect this to be an internal memo to all government employees.
Perhaps if young people saw less bullying by government they would stop.

One possible way of receiving a waiver stated in the memo: “Projects under which a state would count individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no longer receiving TANF assistance toward participation rates for a specified period of time in conjunction with an evaluation of the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy.”

In other words, if I’m reading it correctly, work participation rates would be inflated by counting those in TANF-subsidized jobs but not receiving welfare, allowing states to meet statutory requirements (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/congress/tanfp2.htm) without enforcing current employment rules. It’s simply a changed accounting method that permits waiver for existing work requirements. However, I don’t think voiding the work requirement really is the intent, though it’s a real possibility in some blue states.

Even more interesting, is that this waiver system may be intended as a backdoor stimulus (see http://tinyurl.com/d5v9sed). That memo declares that the Stimulus “has been particularly effective at reaching these workers is the subsidized jobs program included in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.”

Since Obama can’t pass a new stimulus, counting those who take TANF-subsidized jobs for the mandated work participation rate offers an incentive to use more welfare dollars to subsidize more jobs. The question is how fungible HHS dollars are to permit it to funnel more and more money through TANF to subsidize jobs under the guise of fulfilling its mandated administration of welfare.

States could simultaneously allow lax employment rules for welfare recipients while creating more and more subsidized jobs, counting those employed as welfare recipients fulfilling the work participation rate.

There are a lot of blanks to fill in and I hope someone with greater knowledge of welfare law can do so. But I think I lay out a good case that Obama does not wish to void the welfare work requirement per se but rather wishes to create a stimulus program by fiat.